It’s time for a Convention of States, particularly since Congress doesn’t think so

You’ve probably heard this story before. Following the Constitutional Convention in September 1787, Elizabeth Powel, the premiere “Saloniste of Philadelphia” approached Benjamin Franklin on his way out of the Pennsylvania State House and asked what form of government the delegates of the Congress had agreed upon. He replied, “A republic, madam, if you can keep it.”

It was a simple challenge presented almost 220 years ago that resonates with a stentorian echo to this day.

When I travel the country, many folks ask what they can do, what can be done when the rule of law — the US Constitution — is clearly being violated?

Well, it seems more than a few Americans have an answer and have accepted Franklin’s challenge – although it’s not something you’ll see widely reported in the media.

As Bryan Anderson writes for Investors Business Daily, “A very important meeting is being held in Washington this week, but career politicians, lobbyists and most in the media don’t want you to know about it. More than 100 state legislators from around the country are meeting at the Naval Heritage Center.”

“The Assembly of State Legislatures (ASL) will discuss the rules for the first-ever Article V Constitutional amendment convention. This is their third meeting. They’re preparing to take on Washington, and Congress doesn’t like it.”

“The Framers of the Constitution had the foresight to anticipate what Congress has become: a dysfunctional mess. In Article V they wisely provided a means for the states to step in and amend the Constitution largely without congressional approval. The state legislators in ASL are determined to convene an amendment convention. Our situation is that dire.” Sounds like it’s high time for a Convention of States.
Read more at http://conservativebyte.com/2014/12/time-convention-states-particularly-since-congress-doesnt-think/

BREAKING: Black Gang Issues Order To Murder All White Cops.

An there are not REACIST… nahh.

Pero ellos no son RACISTAS… Nooo.

Obama built this. This is part of his ‘fundamental transformation’.

In the wake of several highly publicized media accounts of the shooting deaths of blacks by white police officers, a violent street gang has decided that the time has come for them to take justice into their own hands — by murdering white cops.

The Cuyhoga County Sheriff’s Office in northern Ohio said area street gang Heartless Felons has instructed its members to kill white police officers in retaliation for the deaths of blacks likeMichael Brown and Eric Garner.

Sheriff’s office spokesman John O’Brien refused to release details regarding how the sheriff’s office learned of the instructions, fearing that the gang could benefit from the information.

Law enforcement officers in Bedford and Maple Heights also confirmed that they had heard unsubstantiated rumors along the same lines.

THEY DON’T LIKE OBAMA: Armed Forces’ Support for President Obama Breaks All-Time Record

Wow. This is ugly. But then again… Obama doesn’t like our military that much either.

It’s no secret that President Obama has been an unpopular commander-in-chief with servicemen and -women for a while.

But now, his approval rating among active-duty members of the U.S. military has fallen to an all-time low of just 15 percent,The Military Timesreports:

“Obama’s popularity — never high to begin with — has crumbled, falling from 35 percent in 2009 to just 15 percent this year, while his disapproval ratings have increased to 55 percent from 40 percent over that time.”

Bill O’Reilly: NYC Mayor De Blasio Should Resign

By Greg Richter

Fox News host Bill O’Reilly says New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has lost the backing of his police department and should resign immediately.
O’Reilly was on Christmas break Monday night, but phoned in to “O’Reilly Factor”guest host Greg Gutfeld to criticize de Blasio’s handling of the recent protests against police.

O’Reilly said de Blasio lost the police when he called an attack by protesters on two police lieutenants “alleged” when the actions were clearly shown on video.

“Once he said that, that was the end,” O’Reilly said. When de Blasio showed up at a hospital on Saturday where two slain police officers had been taken, a line of police officers turned their backs on him in protest.
“Good for them,” O’Reilly said.
De Blasio cannot run the city and has lost the respect and control of the NYPD, he said.

“They will never come back no matter what he says,” O’Reilly said. “He associated with the provocateurs and he has disgraced the office of mayor of New York City. He should resign.”

When your Blast Faxes and calls to Washington initiallyDENIEDJohn Boehner the votes he needed to fund Barack Obama’s unlawful Amnesty Decree, John Boehner didn’t get mad… HE GOT EVEN.

And when it became clear he did NOT have the votes to fund Barack Obama’s unlawful Amnesty Decree, John Boehner DECLARED WAR… not against Barack Obama, but against YOU.

Without missing a beat, he ABRUPTLY placed the House into recess and locked arms with Barack Obama. Working in concert, Boehner and Obama twisted arms and made deals behind closed doors and then, six hours later, Boehner called the House back into session in the dark of night to hold the vote.

John Boehner was so cocksure that his betrayal of the American people would succeed that he appeared before the press on the morning of the vote to crow that he had the votes to fund Obama’s Amnesty Decree.

But what the cocksure Boehner didn’t know, as he announced his victory against the American people, is that patriotic Americans, like you, were still flooding the fax lines in Congress… and, hours later, Boehner received a rude awakening.

WorldNetDaily reports: “Some of the greatest drama in the House played out during the vote for the rule allowing debate on the spending package. Normally just a formality, the vote dragged on as GOP leaders lobbied members to vote for the rule. The procedural hurdle was cleared after Rep. Kerry Bentivolio, R-Mich., switched his vote and Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., finally cast his ballot with leadership.”

“However, Stutzman later claimed he supported the rule only after leadership vowed to pull the ‘cromnibus’ and put forward a simple short-term continuing resolution.The congressman alleges leaders reneged on that promise once Obama supported the plan and leadership concluded it could get the votes for passage….“

You read that right. A Member of Congress is saying that Boehner LIED to him to secure his vote in favor of this betrayal of the American people.

But the drama and deceptions weren’t over… not by a long shot. Shortly after utilizing deceptive tactics to bring the measure to the floor of the House, Boehner realized he still didn’t have the votes for final passage (your Blast Faxes and calls were doing the job), and at approximately 3 PM, Boehner abruptly, unexpectedly and underhandedly stopped the measure from failing by putting the House into recess.

And that’s when Boehner and Obama and Joe Biden started working the phone lines, twisting arms and making back-room deals; and then, six hours later, after the measure had mysteriously grown by another 161 pages, Boehner gaveled the House back into session and immediately proceeded to vote on the measure before any more Members of Congress could change their minds.

Understand one thing, John Boehner simply didn’t ignore the will of the American people. If Stutzman is right, BOEHNER LIED to a fellow Republican to do Barack Obama’s bidding… If the 161 pages that were added to the measure at the last minute are any indication of what was happening behind closed doors, BOEHNER CUT BACKROOM DEALS to do Barack Obama’s bidding… And he did it all to stick his thumb in the eyes of the American people so he could fund Barack Obama’s unlawful and unconstitutional Amnesty Decree.

WorldNetDaily again: “Several conservative members were seething over the tactics used by House Speaker John Boehner and his leadership team to get the bill passed and made it clear they’d prefer that he wasn’t speaker in the next Congress.”

Can We Really Oust John Boehner And, If We Do, Could Nancy Pelosi Become The Next Speaker Of The House?

The answer to those questions respectively are “yes, we can oust Boehner” and “no, it is impossible for Nancy Pelosi (or any Democrat) to be elected as Speaker of the House.”

Memories are often short. Most people have already forgotten that John Boehner pulled the same shenanigans two years ago. When he railroaded an Obama-approved budget through the House of Representatives and actually dared to insult patriotic Americans for opposing him, we ran a campaign to oust Boehner as Speaker of the House and IT NEARLY SUCCEEDED.

In regards to Nancy Pelosi becoming the next Speaker of the House, it’s procedurally impossible. To be elected Speaker of the House, a candidate must secure the votes of a simply majority (50% plus one) of House Members. Absent a majority, the House continues to hold votes until a candidate secures an actual majority.

What that means is that Republicans, as the ballots play out, will eventually decide on a consensus candidate and that person would become the next Speaker of the House.

Put another way, for Nancy Pelosi to become the next Speaker of the House, over two dozen Republicans must vote for her… and that’s simply not going to happen.

Enough Is Enough! How Many Imperial Proclamations Must Barack Obama Make Before Congress Moves To Stop His Unlawful And Unconstitutional Usurpations Of Power? Emboldened and bold as brass, Barack Obama has proclaimed that the United States will now move to be “normalizing” relations with the repressive and totalitarian Castro Regime in Cuba.Of course, the fact that Obama has no legal authority to move forward with such an imperial proclamation isn’t deterring him.

But here’s the icing on the cake. To add insult to injury, as we watch the occupant of the White House continue to assert dictatorial authority, far too many pundits and politicians in Washington are content to simply “debate” the wisdom of this “change in U.S. policy.”

These days, the above would almost seem to be a rhetorical question, but according to Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Obama’s actions “may be in direct violation of Helms-Burton…” Ros-Lehtinen goes on to say that “this unilateral action by the President without Congressional consultation is in violation of the following U.S. laws: Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996, Cuban Democracy Act of 1992, and the Trading with the Enemy Act.” Since legislators these days are just too busy to actually read legislation, we decided to save most of them the trouble. Here’s just one (repeat… one) of the pertinent sections of the Helms-Burton act that Barack Obama is violating:SEC. 204. TERMINATION OF THE ECONOMIC EMBARGO OF CUBA.

(a) Presidential Actions. Upon submitting a determination to the appropriate congressional committees under section 203(c)(1) that a transition government in Cuba is in power, the President, after consultation with the Congress, is authorized to take steps to suspend the economic embargo of Cuba and to suspend the right of action created in section 302 with respect to actions thereafter filed against the Cuban Government, to the extent that such steps contribute to a stable foundation for a democratically elected government in Cuba.

There it is… in black and white for everyone to read.

Is there a “transitional government” in place in Cuba? Did Barack Obama engage in“consultation with Congress”BEFORE he determined that the embargo must be lifted? Did he make ANY demands on the Castro Regime that would “contribute to a stable foundation for a democratically elected government” in Cuba?

The answer to all of those questions is a resounding “NO!”

After engaging in clandestine and secret 18-month negotiations with the dictator of Cuba, Barack Obama decided that he was fully empowered to UNILATERALLY move to normalize relations with the Castro regime in exchange for seemingly NOTHING, and furthermore, he’s under the delusion that Congress is under some obligation to get with the program, or else.

Is Obama Flipping You The Bird?
Those aren’t our words. Those are the words of former RNC Chairman Michael Steele: “I think this is the president is basically throwing the bird up in the air to pretty much everybody in this town and saying, you know, what…”
And Steele wasn’t even being critical… he was stating his belief about Barack Obama’s mindset, which is: Damn Congress and the American people, I’m just going to do this stuff on my own!
And here’s what others are saying:According to the liberal Washington Post: “[A] flood of U.S. tourists and business investment that will allow the regime to maintain its totalitarian system indefinitely. Mr. Obama may claim that he has dismantled a 50-year-old failed policy; what he has really done is give a 50-year-old failed regime a new lease on life.”

Senator Ted Cruz says: “We have seen how previous Obama administration attempts at rapprochement with rogue regimes like Russia and Iran have worked out, with our influence diminished and our enemies emboldened. Now they are revisiting this same disastrous policy with the Castros, blind to the fact that they are being played by brutal dictators whose only goal is maintaining power. And if history be our guide, the Castros will exploit that power to undermine America and oppress the Cuban people.”Senator Marco Rubio says: “Cuba, like Syria, Iran, and Sudan, remains a state sponsor of terrorism… Appeasing the Castro brothers will only cause other tyrants from Caracas to Tehran to Pyongyang to see that they can take advantage of President Obama’s naiveté…”Even John Boehner was motivated to feign indignation: “Relations with the Castro regime should not be revisited, let alone normalized, until the Cuban people enjoy freedom – and not one second sooner. There is no ‘new course’ here, only another in a long line of mindless concessions to a dictatorship that brutalizes its people and schemes with our enemies.”And Mike Gonzalez, a senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation, not only outlines the problem, but gives voice to the solution: “Obama obviously has decided to act on his own because he faced little opposition from Congress when he overreached his authority… Congress needs to act now, or Obama simply will move on to the many other items on his bucket list. Congress must make it abundantly clear to Obama that he does not have the authority to lift the embargo on Cuba on his own. Doing so would break U.S. law, namely the Helms-Burton Act.”
barack obama is not our King… he is not our dictator and it’s high time that Congress explain the preceding to him, in nouncertain terms.

Cuba Faces U.S. Threat

“Socialism in One Country” No Answer

Three decades after the revolution, the Cuban people face a perilous future. With the end of the Cold War and the onset of George Bush’s “New World Order,” Cuba now confronts a more aggressive U.S. imperialism. The loss of Soviet aid endangers its underdeveloped, beleaguered economy. The collapse of Stalinism in Europe threatens to leave Cuba as an isolated outpost of “socialism.”

George Bush’s smashing of Iraq was meant to intimidate every “third-world” country, especially one that has challenged its powerful neighbor for so long. Even before the Gulf War, the end of Sandinista rule in Nicaragua had whetted imperialist appetites. While the U.S. recognizes the USSR’s interests in its own diminishing empire, it expects reciprocation in Latin America. Clearly there is little room in the American orbit for an independent Cuba.

Cuba’s stand against imperialism has won it many admirers. So have its domestic achievements in mass education and health care, especially among the poor of the Caribbean and Latin America. As well, the East Europeans’ overthrow of hated Stalinism, along with the Beijing Massacre in China, make Cuba’s reputation shine in comparison. But Cuba’s working-class gains and anti-imperialist actions will now be tightly restricted, not only because of imperialism but because of Castroism’s own policies and contradictions.

We will show here that the Castro regime has no claim to authentic socialism in the Marxist, working-class sense. Nevertheless, it is the Cuban people, not U.S. imperialism or its agents, who have the right to decide the future of their country. The working class, in the imperialist countries especially, must defend Cuba’s right to self-determination. That means fighting the U.S.’s continuing efforts to strangle Cuba and any attempt at military intervention.

From Nationalism to Statification

Fidel Castro’s initial policies following the overthrow of the hated Batista regime in 1959 were radical nationalist in character. His government abolished the largest estates and redistributed about a quarter of the country’s cultivable land; it also agreed to trade sugar to the USSR for oil. Both actions antagonized U.S. capitalists, who owned substantial acreage in Cuba and the oil refineries. The confiscation of the properties of the rich mainstays of Batista were widely popular; they also meant a historical jump in the living standards of poor, landless peasants.

When the refineries refused to handle Soviet oil in 1960, they were nationalized. U.S. President Eisenhower canceled Cuba’s sugar trade quota, and Castro replied by seizing other holdings. The U.S. retaliated with a devastating trade embargo. And in 1961, President Kennedy sponsored the Bay of Pigs invasion, which Cuba easily defeated.

Having defied U.S. domination, Castro led his country out of the American imperialist orbit and turned to the Soviet Union and its allies for survival. Cuba’s current crisis is rooted in the decisions made in the early 1960’s: the Bonapartist transformation of a U.S.-dependent capitalist country into a system of state ownership resting not on working-class power but on the Soviet alliance.

After brief attempts to industrialize, diversify its economy and go it alone, Cuba became heavily dependent on the Stalinist states. It benefited from preferential trade practices with Comecon and adopted Stalinist economic planning methods. The USSR alone purchased 70 percent of Cuba’s exports and accounted for 60 percent of its imports. Its loans and subsidies amounted to many billions of dollars per year (many times the per capita aid from East and West to the rest of Latin America).

During the Cold War, the USSR found it useful to sustain Cuba for several reasons. Allowing a “socialist” country to be strangled by imperialism would have been a humiliating defeat. Subsidizing Cuba provided a showcase for the Stalinist system and good will for the USSR in the third world; and it could be done relatively cheaply, given Cuba’s small population. It also gave the USSR a surrogate for intervention in Africa and Latin America, where the use of Soviet troops or agents would have provoked a U.S. response. Cuba was no pawn but still very reliable.

Cuba’s Stalinization

In sum, Cuba adopted Stalinist statified capitalism. It is important to note that the statification of property, which underlies all claims that Cuba is socialist, was done at a time when the working class had been deactivated and subordinated to the regime. In late 1959, the national trade union congress elected as its leadership the “Humanistas” led by David Salvador, made up of Castro’s initial supporters in the July 26th Movement. But in the process of fusing the Movement with the pro-Moscow Communists, Salvador and his team were purged, and the unions turned into instruments of management and the state.

In the Stalinist CP (which had proved its opportunism and contempt for the working class by supporting Batista for years), Castro found a force that could hold the workers in check. The CP’s ties to the seemingly powerful USSR plus its Stalinist training and tradition enabled it to discipline working-class militancy. As in East Europe, where extensive nationalization had to await the violent crushing of the working classes, an undecapitated working class would have been too volatile for the regime to risk statification. In contrast to East Europe, the Castro leadership’s popularity and anti-imperialist credentials made it easier to restrain the working class’s self-activity.

With East Europe shifting to “free market” economies and Comecon winding down, the Cubans today face the loss of their safety net. The USSR will now pay for the four million tons of sugar it imports at the world price rather than at higher subsidized prices. The Cubans will be hard pressed to pay for the fuel, raw materials and equipment they need to import to keep their economy functioning.

Given Cuba’s vulnerability, these international changes have a major impact. Economic chaos is already under way. Time and again, the Cuban economy suffers from shortages resulting from the failed delivery of raw materials and parts from abroad. One Cuban economist claims that, due to slow deliveries from the Soviet Union, some Cuban industries are operating at only 40 to 50 percent of their normal capacity. (NACLA Report, Aug. 1990.)

Heavily dependent on sugar exports to keep its economy afloat, Cuba saw world prices plummet in the 1980’s. It has also lost hard currency through the drop in oil prices, since Cuba had re-exported Soviet petroleum at a profit. (This accounted for 40 percent of hard currency earnings in the 1980’s.) Cuba’s most pressing problem is its huge foreign debt, on the order of billions of dollars.

To earn hard currency to service its debt, Cuba has turned to austerity measures. Rationing and domestic price increases on textiles, kerosene, sugar, and imported goods have lowered the standard of living. Household electricity has been cut by 10 percent and petroleum rationing introduced. Water and electric services are interrupted. Services take months to deliver. Long lines to obtain basic goods are the norm. Virtually all Cubans rely on the black market to obtain what they need.

Nor is the situation expected to improve. Actions by the Castro regime suggest that it is acutely aware of this. Castro has taken the lead in preparing the nation for a kind of “war communism,” based on even harsher austerity measures. He has warned of the possibility of a “special period” where Cuba would cut back all social development programs for a number of years. Since the Soviet subsidy had allowed Cuba a relative looseness as compared, say, to Romania, its termination means tighter political as well as economic control from the center.

In and Out of Rectification

It would appear that Castro is engaging in the same kind of austerity measures we see in Eastern Europe and the USSR. The picture of rising prices, shortages of consumer goods, and the queues to obtain almost all goods and services, seems all too familiar. But whereas the other Stalinist societies couple austerity with elements of an open market economy, Castro calls for “rectification,” a return to the “socialist morality” of equal sacrifice. Thus, despite these attacks on the Cuban workers, Castro and his leftist admirers continue to assert that Cuba remains true to a socialist course now abandoned by other Stalinist states.

Rather than a reaffirmation of socialism, however, Castro’s rectification campaign is only the latest zigzag by the statist regime. In the late 1960’s, Cuba carried out a harsh, military-style austerity program inspired by Che Guevara’s notion of moral incentives. Popular among anti-Marxist New Leftists, the Cuban approach was an attempt to raise labor productivity while denying material gains (“incentives”) to the workers. Workers’ demands for higher wages and better living standards were dismissed as bourgeois and counterrevolutionary—a common idealist tendency of “revolutionaries” of affluent background.

In the drive for the illusory goal of 10 million tons of sugar, the workers were pushed to their limits. The results were disastrous. As material incentives were cut, labor productivity declined and absenteeism soared. In 1970, it was estimated that 20 percent of the labor force registered absent; in Oriente province, the figure reached 50 percent. When moral incentives failed to inspire the masses to work harder, the regime resorted to labor militarization. Mass mobilizations, although they attracted many volunteers, were carried out under military discipline. This was made easier by the virtual disappearance of the trade unions and the absence of any institutions to defend the working class.

But the government could not abolish the class struggle. Workers’ resistance to the regime’s economic policies forced Castro to change course. During the 1970’s, Cuba underwent changes that, in part, anticipated some of Gorbachev’s reforms in the USSR. Pragmatic policies replaced the “idealistic mistakes” of the 1960’s. More material incentives were introduced, even elements of a free market. In part, this was an acknowledgment of the widespread black market. In 1976 a sort of profit-sharing by industrial managers was introduced, and enterprises acquired forms of legal autonomy. As in East Europe, the statified capitalist bureaucracy was becoming bourgeoisified.

These changes created new problems. Corruption and lopsided income distribution led to increased dissatisfaction among the less privileged. The reforms whetted the appetite of the working class for more, at a time when the regime couldn’t deliver the goods. And once more tied to its one-crop economy, Cuba was just as economically dependent as it had been before the revolution, still caught in the trap of world imperialism. In 1982-83 the economic recession hit third-world nations, and they haven’t recovered since. As the prices for their exports fell, countries like Cuba found themselves unable to pay for needed imports. The resulting debt crisis meant that the masses had to be squeezed.

Castro’s response was a turn back to “communist values” as a distraction from material gains. Economic austerity is coupled with appeals to revolutionary consciousness—moral incentives again. Once more the focus is on labor productivity, especially in export production needed to earn hard currency. Under the new policy, the regime has raised transportation fares, utility costs and market prices, while it has halted moves toward decentralization and free markets.

One area being “rectified” is workers’ wages. Complaining that the level of wages and the social wage (free public services) were not supported by actual production, the regime has tried to revise production norms upwards. The average wage decreased in the latter half of 1986 when rectification was introduced. Not surprisingly, many workers saw rectification as a drive to curb wages.

Castro’s “Internationalism”

Enthusiasts of the Castro regime argue that Cuba’s economic difficulties are to be blamed on the immense pressure of U.S. imperialism. Largely so, but that is not the sole reason. The Stalinist methods Cuba adopted have been exposed as backward and exploitative in East Europe, the USSR and China—wherever workers have found means to express their class interests. In Cuba, independent working-class activity is still tightly prohibited. Undoubtedly the Cuban workers will eventually recover their voice—and then we will see what happened to the gains they once won and what they think of the conditions they live under.

The argument that Cuba’s problems are all the fault of imperialism defeats itself. Imperialist hostility toward radical change in the countries it subjects is inevitable. The measure of a rebel leadership, therefore, is whether its struggle and the system it builds point to a successful escape from imperialism—or to a blind alley. The only hope for an anti-imperialist revolution in an economically backward country like Cuba is revolutionary internationalism. That means working to spread the revolution from country to country to win power for the working classes and thereby undermine imperialism.

Success cannot be guaranteed. The Bolsheviks were inspired by internationalist goals; the Russian revolution was meant to be the spark for proletarian revolution in Europe. As the Soviet state degenerated, its leaders sought an illusory refuge from imperialism by opting for “socialism in one country,” and it was ultimately defeated. But capitalism’s triumph required the Stalinist counterrevolution.

In Cuba, in contrast, the Stalinization of the revolution coincided with its turn to “socialism.” Externally, the Cuban regime—along with its military, economic and professional support for several third-world countries—has a long record of conciliation with non-revolutionary forces. Examples: Castro maintained a friendly alliance with the Mexican bourgeois regime even after its savage repression of mass strikes and protests in 1968. He endorsed the reformist “road to socialism” of Salvador Allende in Chile, which disarmed the workers, both politically and militarily, and led to the Pinochet dictatorship and the massacre of thousands. He flirted with the Peruvian military rulers, the Panamanian regime of General Torrijos and even the fascistic dictatorship of the Argentinian generals.

These alliances exhibit Castro’s idea of “internationalism”: supporting national leaders who claim some independence from imperialism, at whatever cost to the masses of the country. In 1985 he explicitly denied that social revolution was the solution for third-world countries. Faced with the massive international debt crisis, he proposed a “new international economic order” based on reconciliation with imperialism: not a revolutionary repudiation of the debts but a gracious imperial cancellation. The Wall Street Journal was astonished: “Mr. Castro sounded less like a subversive than a worried banker.” (See Proletarian Revolution No. 24.)

Even when Cuba defended Angola against South Africa in the 1970’s, it enforced imperialist stability—for example, by shielding Western-owned oil installations in Cabinda from attack by Congolese rebels. Castro’s worst betrayal was in Ethiopia, where he turned against the Eritrean liberation movement and sent arms and troops to the bloody Mengistu regime when it became the USSR’s ally.

With his long anti-worker record and service to Stalinism, why do many on the left look to Castro as an alternative to East European bureaucratism? The fundamental difference is that the Cuban revolution was a popular (although not a mass) struggle that defeated a brutal dictator as well as imperialism at the outset. Castro was not another bureaucrat imposed by Moscow.

Was the Cuban Revolution Socialist?

This fact has led some leftists to exaggerate Castroism’s achievements and regard it as genuine socialism. Such views were given theoretical cover by pseudo-Trotskyists, led by the U.S. Socialist Workers Party in the 1960’s. A recent version comes from Malik Miah of Socialist Action (an SWP split-off), who contrasts Cuba with Nicaragua. Addressing leftists shocked by the electoral defeat of the Sandinistas, Miah claims that the “Cuban road to socialism” was the “path not taken” in Nicaragua. (Socialist Action, Nov. 1990.)

Why did Nicaragua fail to become another Cuba? Miah blames a failure of leadership. Specifically, he charges the FSLN with defending a “mixed economy” and not expropriating the capitalists. In contrast, the Cuban leaders “refused to compromise with imperialism” and local capitalism.

Miah goes on to link the Castro strategy in Cuba with the Bolshevik leadership of Lenin.

For the first time since the Russian Revolution a revolution succeeded because of the actions of its leadership. (This stands in sharp contrast to the overturns of capitalism in Eastern Europe and China after World War II.)”

That is, while it is supposedly possible to create “deformed workers’ states” as in China and East Europe without revolutionary leaderships, Cuba’s leadership was revolutionary and therefore achieved even more: a genuine, not deformed, workers’ state on the road to socialism. Of course, as we have often pointed out, the notion that workers’ states can be created by non-proletarian forces violates the basic conception of Marxism; socialist revolution means proletarian leadership. To deal with this blatant contradiction, the Castro boosters have to go farther. They stretch the bounds of Marxism and reality to argue that Cuba’s was a working-class socialist revolution.

Explanatory Socialism

Miah makes this case by first explaining, correctly, that the July 26 Movement had been led by petty-bourgeois elements, with enthusiastic support among the masses. The Castro leadership consisted of “genuine democrats” who sought to implement an anti-imperialist, bourgeois-democratic program. How then did they transform themselves into working-class Bolsheviks? Just as in East Europe, they nationalized capitalist property, statified foreign trade and began economic planning. Still, this all took place without a proletarian revolutionary party, without workers’ councils, even without action by the Cuban trade unions. The key for Miah appears to be that these steps had mass support:

“They were not administrative actions. Each expropriation and other acts were explained to the masses. The workers and peasants understood them. They were mobilized to carry them out and consolidate the political and economic expropriation of the old ruling class.”

Some of this is true. The masses were indeed mobilized to hear Castro explain his policies to them, and they undoubtedly did approve the expropriation of their old bosses. But the workers did not make the decisions themselves. They have always been denied the opportunity to “fit themselves for power,” in Marx’s words, by exercising power in the course of making and running their so-called workers’ state. Explanatory, plebiscitarian “socialism” means that their all-wise bosses do it for them.

Similar explanations were given for the Stalinist takeovers in China and East Europe. Mass support for eliminating hated bourgeois exploiters through statification of property does not distinguish working-class socialism from petty-bourgeois nationalism.

One argument sometimes given is that the 1959 revolution was accompanied by a general strike of the working class. So it was, but the strike was far more symbolic than decisive: it occurred after Batista & Co. had already fled the country, and it was quickly called off by Castro. The strike did, however, impress on the new coalition government (of Castroists and traditional liberal capitalists) the need to offer concessions to the working class.

The case that Cuban Stalinism is qualitatively different from discredited East European and Chinese Stalinism rests on the leadership’s supposed revolutionary consciousness. But this case is belied by Cuba’s relation with the Nicaraguan revolution. Indeed, as an article in the same issue of Socialist Action points out, Cuba advised Nicaragua against taking the Cuban “road to socialism.” It cites Cuban Vice President Carlos Rafael Rodriguez in 1984: “We don’t believe that the Cuban model is to be exported either to Central America or to the rest of the world.”

Mixed Economy vs. Nationalization

Castro was even clearer on his support for the mixed economy. The top priority for Nicaragua was economic development, not the construction of socialism, since Nicaragua was much less developed than Cuba had been.

“I think the Nicaraguan plan—and I have no disagreements with it, neither theoretical nor practical, and I say that sincerely—is perfect, given the conditions in their country and in Central America.”

Socialist Actionattacks these views for obstructing the course toward socialist revolution in Nicaragua. (Of course, the Sandinistas could not have taken such a course, since they were no more working-class than the Castroists.) Yet Castro’s advice to Nicaragua was essentially the same petty-bourgeois nationalist view that shaped the Cuban revolution at the start. And his assumption that Cuba was sufficiently developed for socialism is pure Stalinist idealism. The only difference is that Cuba dealt with imperialism’s attacks by nationalizing its property, whereas the Sandinistas tried to be more accommodating. In the 1980’s, Castro feared that if Nicaragua challenged the U.S. in its own hemisphere, that would also bring down imperialist wrath on his island.

Cuba had followed the East European model of “socialism” via top-down nationalization, which leads to statified capitalism. By 1979, however, Stalinism’s economic decay was already sharply felt, and the Soviets knew they could not subsidize another client in the U.S.’s sphere of domination. So Castro was carrying out the Soviet line when he urged the Sandinistas not to “go socialist.”

As well, a radical measure like full nationalization was dangerous without discipline over the workers. It would have tempted the revolutionary Nicaraguan proletariat to run industry itself and create its own state. The Nicaraguan Stalinists (like Stalinists everywhere by that time) had lost the power to control the working class. Cubanization was therefore not a possibility.

By encouraging the Sandinistas’ accommodations, Castro aided the defeat of the Nicaraguan revolution and helped keep Nicaragua’s workers and peasants under the gun of imperialism and the counterrevolution. Castro’s internationalism turned out to be little different from Stalin’s “socialism in one country.”

Castro vs. Gorbachev

Castro has positioned himself as the orthodox defender of communism in opposition to Gorbachev’s reforms. While Gorbachev has moved the USSR towards traditional market capitalism and seeks to promote the image of a responsible imperialist power, Castro champions more centralized statified capitalism. He still goes heavy on the anti-imperialist rhetoric. Given Washington’s absolute rejection of Cuba’s post-Cold War overtures, he has little alternative.

Despite these differences, Castro and Gorbachev continue to face the same task, keeping the working class in check. Gorbachev deepens the workers’ exploitation by promoting openly bourgeois policies. Castro’s method is to maintain bureaucratically “planned” austerity and to accommodate with imperialism in the international arena.

Leftists who attempt to counterpose Castro to Gorbachev are only grasping at straws; there is no principled difference between them. Castro still needs the Soviets, so his criticisms are carefully worded to avoid an open break. As he said in 1989:

“We must continue to develop our ties with the socialist countries, regardless of their style or model of building socialism. We have our own ideas, but we start by proclaiming our absolute respect for the right of each socialist country to try to build socialism in the manner and with the methods it sees fit. What they do does not involve us.”(From the SWP’s compilation of Castro speeches, In Defense of Socialism, p. 135.)

This proclamation was false from every angle. Even from that of Castro’s self-interest: the pro-Western course of the East European regimes led to governments that halted aid to Cuba. Thus what they do indeed does “involve us,” as any internationalist would have known. Moreover, Fidel was lying: his “respect” for fellow “socialists” did not extend to allowing Cubans to read the reformist Soviet press. The idea of many roads to socialism really means little but mutual non-interference: you Europeans may have to make concessions to your workers and intellectuals, but not we. Whatever you do, it is bourgeois and counterrevolutionary for Cuban workers to demand their rights of class independence. So keep your glasnost to yourself.

Castro’s supporters on the left can hardly take much comfort from his criticisms of Gorbachev, since Castro has to line himself up with the right wing of the Stalinist bureaucracy (linked in turn to various ultra-nationalist, racist and even Czarist forces). In this Castro is true to his past. He has been a consistent opponent of every mass struggle against the Stalinist regimes. He defended the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia—conveniently overlooking his “essential” principles of non-interference. He has never been a left challenge to Stalinism; his opposition to marketizing “reforms” is not a revolutionary alternative but rather an attempt to preserve the bureaucracy’s monopoly on power.

For Authentic Socialism

The Cuban revolution was a tremendous blow against imperialism. But petty-bourgeois nationalism, including the Stalinist variant, offers no way out of the imperial stranglehold. Castro has spent three decades propping up the carcass of Stalinism. Rather than a genuine international revolution, he has always promoted the illusion that real independence can be won without overthrowing imperialism.

Castroism represents not a way out of the imperialist grip but, in Trotsky’s words, the “reactionary utopia” of a nationally isolated “socialist” society doomed to backwardness. Cynicism abounds in the third world today; antediluvian ideologies like Islamic and Christian fundamentalism bloom because the masses, still hating imperialism, learned to distrust the “Marxist” secular alternatives. For this Castro bears much responsibility.

Cuba is in grave danger. Only the international working-class struggle can save it from imperialist encirclement. The workers of all countries must learn to overcome imperialist patriotism and “law and order”; in this they will get no aid from Castro and his diplomats. That task requires the re-creation of an internationalist revolutionary party—the Fourth International. And that means confronting Stalinism in both its Gorbachev and Castro forms.

“We Had the Honor to”… Abstain

Recent events expose Cuba’s debatable internationalism. In the build-up to the war against Iraq, Cuba played an ambiguous role in the U.N. Security Council, voting against some decisions endorsing the U.S.-led war effort. In a Havana speech last September, Castro boasted:

“We had the honor of being the only country to vote ’No.’! [Prolonged applause] History will record the honor, the dignity and the courage with which Cuba acted during that moment of such importance to the life of humanity. It was necessary to take a firm position and we did not abstain—we voted ’No.’ And we will vote against everything we do not agree with, even if we are the only ones. [Applause]” (Quotes here are from the SWP’s book, U.S. Hands Off the Middle East!)

Very noble, but that vote was on one subsidiary resolution (No. 670, to embargo Iraqi aircraft). On more decisive questions Cuba had already failed to stand firm: it endorsed the imperialist rationale for war. Cuba voted for the U.N.’s demand that Iraq withdraw from Kuwait (Resolution 660), and for the restoration of the “legitimate government” of the emirs (Resolution 662). It shamefully abstained on the key resolution (661) ordering an all-out economic boycott of Iraq, itself an act of war against the Iraqi people. It also abstained on Resolution 665 authorizing the use of naval force to halt shipping into and from Iraq. And in an August 25 speech, U.N. representative Ricardo Alarcón boasted that Cuba was cooperating with the boycott of Iraq even though it had abstained on the vote.

Alarcón explained his government’s overall position:

“To Cuba, the principles of non-interference in the internal affairs of states, no matter what the reason may be; of the non-use of force in international relations; of the peaceful settlement of disputes between states; and of respect for the independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of all nations are essential principles of our international order. It is in defense of those principles that we have expressed our disapproval and condemnation of the entry of Iraqi forces into the territory of Kuwait a few days ago, and have declared that this state of affairs must be ended with the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwaiti territory and the full restoration of Kuwait’s sovereignty.”

Thus, while Cuba opposed the extreme measure of war to force Iraq to withdraw, it nevertheless positioned itself with the rest of the cutthroats in the U.N. The idea that small states like Cuba can defend themselves by promoting bourgeois nationalist “principles of international order” has nothing to do with revolutionary internationalism; it is a legalistic, not a revolutionary, strategy. In this case the abstract principle (“non-interference… no matter what the reason may be”) placed Cuba alongside imperialism, not against it. Rather than expose the lie that the U.N. or any imperialist institution can defend the oppressed nations, Cuba disoriented oppressed masses throughout the world.

Moreover, Cuba endorsed the dubious notion that Kuwait is a nation entitled to self-determination. In fact it is an imperialist enclave whose rulers operate in Europe more than “at home.” In a message from Fidel Castro to all the Arab heads of state, cited by Ambassador Alarcón on August 9, Castro endorsed the restoration of Kuwait’s “legitimate” emir. He added:

“Let me share with you, Your Excellency, the certainty that inspires me of the wisdom and courage of the leaders of the Arab nation, and the vitality of its institutions.”

These wise and courageous leaders include not only the emir but also the Saudi king, the Syrian butcher and the Iraqi dictator himself. More:

“Nothing and no one can replace this strength, this authority and this morale in the immediate search for a negotiated solution to a conflict between two Arab peoples.”

Here Castro asserts the rights of the nationalist leaders as opposed to imperialism. But he overlooks how much their “strength and authority” derives from imperialism. Any revolutionary with the slightest regard for the masses of the Arab world would insist that it is the Arab working people who can and must replace the killers and slaveowners installed by imperialism. But Castroist nationalism requires support for and non-interference with every nationalism, even the most retrograde. Revolutionary opponents to Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Hafez al-Assad in Syria, etc., can expect no help from Fidel. Remember the Eritreans.

State Dept. Says North Korea Should Pay Back Sony for Cyberattack

North Korea should compensate Sony Pictures for the damages it caused by launching a cyberattack against Sony Pictures, and by issuing terrorist threats against movie theaters that screen one of its movies, according to a State Department spokeswoman.

“The government of North Korea has a long history of denying responsibility for destructive and provocative actions, and if they want to help here, they could admit their culpability and compensate Sony for the damages that they caused,” said State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf.

Over the weekend, North Korea said it is not to blame for the cyberattack or threats against theaters that show the movie “The Interview.” The comedy centers around two U.S. reporters who are hired by the U.S. government to kill Kim.

North Korea even suggested the two countries should work together to figure out who launched the cyberattack against Sony. But Harf said the U.S. government is “confident” that North Korea is to blame, and said it stands by that conclusion.

“If they want to help here, as they indicated over the weekend they did, then they can admit their culpability and compensate Sony for the damages this attack caused,” she reiterated.

The event has raised tensions between the U.S. and North Korea, and has prompted the U.S. to consider putting North Korea on the list of state sponsors of terrorism. It’s also led to conjecture about whether the U.S. might respond in some other ways.

Weekend reports suggested that North Korea may have lost access to the Internet, which led to questions Monday about whether the U.S. was behind that. Harf didn’t deny that the U.S. was behind that outage, and said only that the U.S. was in the process of responding to the cyberattack.

“As we implement our responses, some will be seen, some may not be seen,” she said.

At the same time, she called on North Korea to “exercise restraint” in the growing war of words between the two countries.

FAT LIP: Rahm Emanuel’s Son Jumped Outside Family’s Home

You see Rahm, this is what happens when you don’t have armed guards around you 24/7 to protect you. Imagine how the rest of the unarmed Americans in your state feel. Fight the fight, go support my documentary and donate here: #GirlsJustWannaHaveGuns

Emanuel’s 17-year-old son went out to make a phone call when he was jumped by two men who stole the teen’s cell phone.

Emanuel’s spokesperson Kelley Quinn released a statement saying, “Yesterday evening Mayor Emanuel’s son Zach was assaulted in a robbery during which his phone was stolen. He sustained injuries that required medical treatment, but was able to join the family for a long planned trip. The Mayor’s focus is on his son’s well-being, and as parents, he and Amy ask that the media respect their family’s privacy at this time.”

Police officers are assigned to the mayor’s home front and back 24 hours a day. There are also cameras at both ends of the block. Read more atcbslocal.com

Watch: Rosie Claimed To Know What Racism Is, And Whoopi Almost Fell Out Of Her Seat

“It’s not the same.”

Whoopi Goldberg and Rosie O’Donnell got amped-up with each other on Thursday’s The View during a discussion about racism that was centered on the Obama’s recent Peoplemagazine interview that described their experiences with discriminatory treatment. The President suggested in the interview that he had been mistaken for a parking valet at a restaurant. Ms. Goldberg commented:

“I’ve been black for 60 years. For me, stupidity, there are dumb folks who just say dumb stuff because they’re not looking or paying attention to the person they’re talking to which is why people could walk up to Obama and not look up at him and see that it’s the President.”

Rosie Perez, who is from Puerto Rico, disagreed with Goldberg’s statement:

“But that’s the conscious racism! If me and Rosie [O’Donnell] were going into a store together, they would follow me and not her.”

The conversation became more inflamed as the United States, as a nation, was described as being racist, along with Congress, and then Democrats as well.

Ms. O’Donnell: “Democrats are racist too. It’s our cultural history.”

Ms. Goldberg: “You know what? Listen! You are a white lady telling me what is racist to you.”

Rosie O’Donnell took the conversation to the next level by declaring that she knows what racism is because she has an adopted child in her own household.

Ms. O’Donnell: “I’m a gay American whose been called a dike. I know what homophobia and hatred looks like.”

Ms. Goldberg: “It’s not the same.”

Ms. O’Donnell: “I have a black kid I raise, Whoopi. I have a kid in my house.”

Ms. Goldberg: “That is not the same thing.”

Ms. O’Donnell: “You don’t have to be black to know what racism is.”

Ms. Goldberg: “Yes you do.”

The two hosts continued to disagree when Ms. Goldberg concluded her argument:

WATCH: How NYC’s Former Mayor Just Pointed The Finger At The Current Mayor For Cop Killings

“The politicians…are doing something that’s shameful.”

The cold-blooded, execution-style murders of two New York City police officers over the weekend and the resulting accusations by both police spokesmen and the mayor’s office have kept tensions in the Big Apple at the boiling point.

Two uniformed NYPD officers were shot point-blank Saturday afternoon as they sat in their marked police car on a Brooklyn street corner. Investigatorssay a crazed gunman with a long police record ­assassinated the pair to avenge the deaths of Eric Garner and Michael Brown.

As reported by the Daily Caller, two high-profile representatives of police unions were extremely critical of Mayor Bill de Blasio for, in their opinion, condoning, if not encouraging, protests against his own police department in the aftermath of grand jury decisions about officer-involved deaths of black men.

“Mayor de Blasio, the blood of these two officers is clearly on your hands,” said Sergeants Benevolent Association police union president Edward Mullins.

“That blood on their hands starts on the steps of City Hall in the office of the mayor,” said Pat Lynch, president of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association.

In response to police officers turning their backs on Mayor de Blasio when he entered a news conference following the brutal killing of the two NYC cops, the Mayor’s office fired off a harsh criticism of the officers.

“It’s unfortunate that in a time of great tragedy, some would resort to irresponsible, overheated rhetoric that angers and divides people,” de Blasio spokesman Marti Adams said in a statement following the union leaders’ remarks.

On Fox News, former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani was highly critical of de Blasio and others who, he said, are exploiting for political gain the dangerous tensions between police and the communities they serve.

“The politicians with this propaganda, separating the community from the police, are doing something that’s shameful. And they have to stop doing that.”

North Korea Threatens Strikes Against the White House, Pentagon and ‘the Whole U.S. Mainland, That Cesspool of Terrorism’

SEOUL, South Korea (TheBlaze/AP) — North Korea said President Barack Obama is “recklessly” spreading rumors of a Pyongyang-orchestrated cyberattack of Sony Pictures and warns of strikes against the White House, Pentagon and “the whole U.S. mainland, that cesspool of terrorism.”

Such North Korean rhetoric during times of high tension with Washington is routine. But a long statement from the powerful National Defense Commission late Sunday also underscores Pyongyang’s sensitivity over “The Interview,” movie whose plot focuses on the assassination of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

North Korean leader Kim Jong

“The DPRK has already launched the toughest counteraction. Nothing is more serious miscalculation than guessing that just a single movie production company is the target of this counteraction. Our target is all the citadels of the U.S. imperialists who earned the bitterest grudge of all Koreans,” a report on state-run KCNA read.

“Our toughest counteraction will be boldly taken against the White House, the Pentagon and the whole U.S. mainland, the cesspool of terrorism,” the report said. CNN noted that it also said “fighters for justice” including the “Guardians of Peace” — a group that claimed responsibility for the Sony attack — “are sharpening bayonets not only in the U.S. mainland but in all other parts of the world.”

The U.S. blames North Korea for the cyberattack that escalated to threats of terror attacks against U.S. movie theaters and caused Sony to cancel “The Interview’s” release.

Obama said Washington is reviewing whether to put North Korea back on its list of state sponsors of terrorism.

As Western Journalismreported yesterday, a federal court has determined that Obama’s unilateral action to protect millions of illegal immigrants from deportation violates the Constitution.

While that finding doesn’t mean that Obama’s controversial order is invalidated, it does provide powerful ammunition for others who want the courts to stop the president’s action from taking effect.

As reported at washingtontimes.com, the ruling is reverberating through court cases currently in process, including the multi-state challenge led by Texas as well as Sheriff Joe’s anti-amnesty fight:

Both Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio filed papers late Tuesday night in their respective challenges to Mr. Obama’s amnesty, saying the Pennsylvania judge’s ruling adds heft to their own attacks.

The D.C. court that’s considering Sheriff Joe’s case has scheduled a hearing for next week on the possible issuance of a preliminary injunction to halt the president’s amnesty order.

Curiously, the blockbuster opinion issued by the Pennsylvania federal judge was tucked in his findings regarding the drunk-driving case of an illegal immigrant.

National Journalnotes that in researching the case, the court requested information from the federal government over whether Obama’s executive action applied.

…in [Judge] Schwab’s opinion, the first priority is to “determine whether the Executive Action is constitutional.” And he determined that it wasn’t.

“The Court holds that the Executive Action is unconstitutional because it violates the separation of powers and the Take Care Clause of the Constitution,” he wrote.

Watch: What Trump Just Called Al Sharpton Will Cause Race Hustler Heads To Explode

Trump called Sharpton a…

Donald Trump is known for saying some pretty provocative things from time to time, and his appearance this morning on “Fox and Friends” gave him another chance to drop a huge verbal bomb.

When asked about Al Sharpton’s role in stirring up racial tensions and turning communities of color against the police departments that serve them, Trump was both blunt and accusatory.

Referring to the civil rights activist’s involvement in Ferguson and New York City protests against so-called police misconduct, Trump called Sharpton a “professional con man” who has “gotten away with murder.”

Pakistan plans to execute around 500 militants in coming weeks, officials said Monday, after the government lifted a moratorium on the death penalty in terror cases following a Taliban school massacre.

Six militants have been hanged since Friday amid rising public anger over Tuesday’s slaughter in the northwestern city of Peshawar, which left 149 people dead including 133 children.

After the deadliest terror attack in Pakistani history, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif ended the six-year moratorium on the death penalty, reinstating it for terrorism-related cases.

“Interior ministry has finalised the cases of 500 convicts who have exhausted all the appeals, their mercy petitions have been turned down by the president and their executions will take place in coming weeks,” a senior government official told AFP on condition of anonymity.

A second official confirmed the information.

Of the six hanged so far, five were involved in a failed attempt to assassinate then military ruler Pervez Musharraf in 2003, while one was involved in a 2009 attack on army headquarters.

Pakistani soldiers provide security during a mass prayer for the victims of a school massacre, in Pe …

In Karachi, the Sindh High Court suspended the death warrants of two terror convicts just a day before they were due to go to the gallows.

“The Sindh High Court suspended the death warrants of two terrorists today,” additional advocate general Mustafa Mehsar told AFP.

Defence attorney Abdul Razaq confirmed the news.

“We had filed a petition in the Sindh High Court and the second review petition is pending in the superior courts and till the decision of the petition, the death penalty could not be implemented,” Razaq told AFP.

Both the accused were sentenced to death in July 2004 for killing a doctor in Karachi in July 2001.

Pakistani mourners leave floral tributes outside the army-run school where 149 people were massacred …

– Wrath at Khan –

Cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan, whose Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) party leads the government in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province, of which Peshawar is the capital, faced tough questions Monday from the relatives of those killed.

Angry parents accused PTI of neglecting its duties in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa in favour of months of protests in Islamabad aimed at bringing down the national government.

Shahabuddin, the father of one student killed in the attack, told Khan: “We had voted for you to bring about a change, but you gave us nothing but politics of dharna (sit-in protest).”

Police, troops and paramilitary rangers were deployed across the country and airports and prisons put on red alert during the executions and as troops intensify operations against Taliban militants.

A Pakistani soldier stands guard at a checkpost near the Kot Lakhpat jail on the outskirts of Lahore …

Sharif has ordered the attorney general’s office to “actively pursue” capital cases currently in the courts, a government spokesman said.

The “prime minister has also issued directions for appropriate measures for early disposal of pending cases related to terrorism,” the spokesman said, without specifically confirming the plan to execute 500 people.

Pakistan has described Tuesday’s bloody school rampage, claimed by the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), as its own “mini 9/11,” calling it a game-changer in the fight against extremism.

Political and military leaders vowed to redouble efforts to stamp out the scourge of terror in the wake of the attack, which the TTP said was revenge for the killing of their families in an army offensive in the tribal northwest.

The offensive against longstanding Taliban and other militant strongholds in North Waziristan and Khyber tribal agencies has been going on since June.

But a series of fresh strikes since the Peshawar attack, in which dozens of alleged militants were killed, suggest the campaign is being stepped up.

The decision to reinstate executions was condemned by human rights groups, with the United Nations also calling for Pakistan to reconsider.

Human Rights Watch on Saturday said the executions were “a craven politicised reaction to the Peshawar killings” and demanded no further hangings be carried out.

Pakistan began its de facto moratorium on civilian executions in 2008, but hanging remains on the statute books and judges continue to pass death sentences.

Before Friday’s resumption, only one person had been executed since 2008 — a soldier convicted by a court martial and hanged in November 2012.

So Ismaaiyl Brinsley the killer of the two cops in Brooklyn, NY, has two Muslim names “Ismaaiyl” and a middle name “Abdullah” (see mugshot bellow) which means “servant of Allah,” is a fan of sheikh Yusuf Estes, who is not only neck deepin the Muslim Da’wa movement(the call to convert westerners to Islam) but Estes meets with both ISIS and Hamas financiers, and Brinsley loved the Koran, specifically Surah 8 on his own Facebook page, which calls for arming for preparation for Jihad war; it says all on what we need for motive as to why Brinsley shot the two officers. All that, accompanied with Hamas supporters, who were proven to have been behind the riots in Ferguson is a complete recipe for killing cops as we present the evidence in this article.

Brinsley is a jihad sympathizer who used the racial turmoil as an excuse to kill Americans. The Ferguson riots as we shall see here were pushed and organized by Muslim fundamentalists in America.

Firstly, the verse he likes to read is:

Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, tostrike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.

Brinsley admittedhimself that he was “Muslim” and also frequented Al-Farooq Mosque which had a long history of terrorsupport going back more than 20 years which hosted Al-Qaeda co-founder, a Palestinian named Abdullah Azzam. Al-Farooq’s imam was Gulshair Shukrijumah, was not only a regular translator for the Blind Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, but his son, Adnan, became a top Al-Qaeda operative and was killed in a gun battle with Pakistani intelligence just a few weeks ago. Yet another mosque official, Sheikh Mohammed al-Moayad, was charged in 2003 with using the mosque as a front to raise $20 million for Al-Qaeda. At the time, the New York Times noted the mosque’s extensive connections to terrorism. All that plus NYPD Chief of Detectives Robert Boyce saidhe was “Muslim” but does not know if he was “radicalized”. Well, if he was not “radicalized” then what’s this photo of the most ‘radical’ verses from the Quran doing on his Facebook:

Koranic favorite of Ismaaiyl Brinsley which calls for the preparation to kill from Surah 8. Taken from Brinsley’s Facebook page. The text says: “Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.”

Is It Time to Abandon the Republican Party?

We’re hearing about third parties again. Mark Levin has said that “he’s one inch away from leaving” the Republican Party. Matt Barber has written “I Am No Longer a Republican.” In the second paragraph of his article (you can read it here on Godfather Politics), he writes:

“Even before the gavel has sounded on the Republican-led 114th Congress, these treacherous cowards shamelessly, eagerly, it seems, squandered perhaps the one opportunity they had to stop, in his tracks, America’s first cultural Marxist, anti-American, palpably evil president.”

There is a key point in what Matt Barber writes. The effects of the 2014 election are not yet in play. Yes, I realize the GOP Establishment despises the Tea Party and is doing everything to neutralize its impact. Before any decisions are made about abandoning the GOP, however, let’s at least wait until we learn what this new crop is going to do.

Did any of us actually think that Boehner and McConnell were going to have a Damascus Road political experience when they saw the 2014 election results? I didn’t.

Will this new crop of congressmen create a conservative minority and caucus with those in the House and Senate who want to fight the Republican Establishment? If this happens, the GOP Establishment will be hamstrung. Hopefully the current crop of conservatives in Congress are contacting the upcoming arrivals and putting together an adversary party within the GOP.

Being subversive from the inside is the best approach.

At this point in time, we are stuck with a two-party system. Deal with it. If radical leftists were able to take over the Democrat Party and a mini-Republican Revolution was started by Reagan in 1980 and revived congressionally in 1994 and 1996, I can’t understand why we would not put our efforts into taking over the Republican Party. If we can’t take over an existing party, what makes us think we’re going to be able to start a new party?

The old adage that you can’t change just one thing applies here. First, a two to six-year election process needs to begin now to capture the Senate and the House by picking the most vulnerable political party. Right now, that’s the GOP. We’ve had great success. The November 2014 election is a shining example of that success. Let’s not forget that they’re not in office yet. The GOP Establishment is afraid of them; that’s why they rigged the game before they’re sworn in.

Second, begin to recruit and groom candidates who will run as reform candidates on a unified competing political platform within the GOP. It would help to find candidates who have political experience and some name recognition.

Third, bloggers and websites should be started immediately to lay out the specifics of the new platform. Use the web to get around the political gatekeepers.

Fifth, keep the kooks from taking over the process. The Bible says, “be wise as serpents and gentle as doves.” As Bobby Darin said, “People hear what they see.” Don’t give anybody a reason to reject a position other than the position itself.

Sixth, the energy and success behind the effort will encourage other candidates to jump on board and energize the base. We might even get a good presidential candidate out of the process. Talk about abandoning the process when we’ve just scored a major victory is foolish and short-sighted.

The Establishment Republicans want the Tea Party types to abandon the GOP. It’s what they’re hoping for. Don’t give them the satisfaction. Take over the party like they did.

Will the malcontents follow this strategy? Probably not. They will bellyache about how bad the candidates and the two-party system are then tell those who don’t vote for one of their miracle candidates that they are not voting in terms of principle.

The Republicans and Democrats are in power because they’ve worked at it. If you want to revamp the political system, it’s going to take a lot of hard work and very few miracles. Are you up to the task?

Jackson: ‘Unfair’ to Blame Cop Slayings on Discontent With Police

Sean Piccoli

Blaming political figures, protesters or civil rights leaders for Saturday’s execution-style killing of two New York City police officers is an “unfair” and “extreme” response to a horrific but isolated event, the Rev. Jesse Jackson told Newsmax TVon Monday.
The civil rights leader told “MidPoint” host Ed Berliner that the families of the slain NYPD officers “need all the condolences and mercy we can afford,” and said their murders on Saturday in Brooklyn were “not a political assassination,” but the act of a “cold-blooded” and “deranged” individual.

Note:Watch Newsmax TV now on DIRECTV Ch. 349 and DISH Ch. 223
Get Newsmax TV on your cable system — Click Here Now

“We should not equate the actions of a sick manwho did a sick thing with mass demonstrations for justice and for healing,” said Jackson. “Don’t make that equation.”
On-duty officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu were gunned downin broad daylight as they sat inside a patrol car. Their killer, Ismaaiyl Brinsley, had already shot and wounded his ex-girlfriend earlier that day in Baltimore, police said.
Brinsley traveled from Baltimore to New York, vowing on social media to target police for the death of police chokehold victim Eric Garner. After shooting Ramos and Liu, Brinsley turned his gun on himself as other officers closed in on him inside a subway station, police said.
Jackson, founder and president of the Rainbow PUSH Coalition, condemned violence of any kind in connection with protests for equal treatment under the law.
“Those who are saying they want ‘dead cops,’ they don’t represent the heart of our civil rights struggle,” said Jackson.“Those who call for violence, they don’t represent the heart of our civil rights struggle.

“We believe we can have nonviolent conflict resolution,” he said, adding that with violence, “No. 1, you cannot win the fight; No. 3, it distracts from the message of healing; and No. 3, there is no redemption in violence.
“So we believe in nonviolent action, and most people in those marches represent just that,” he said.
Jackson said that the issues raised by protesters in recent weeks — since grand juries cleared white police officers in the deaths of Garner and Michael Brown — still need to be addressed, and that protest is a legitimate outlet for concerns about policing.
He said there remains a “a pattern of blacks being killed” by police and that “at some point we must decide that an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, will leave all of us blind and disfigured and dead. We must stop being so quick on the trigger finger.”
Jackson also defended his civil-rights contemporary, the New York-based the Rev. Al Sharpton,against charges of inflaming tensions, and he criticized the NYPD cops whoturned their backson New York Mayor Bill De Blasio inside the hospital where the two fatally wounded officers were brought.
“To turn your back on the chief executive officer of the city is unprofessional and it cannot be justified,” said Jackson.

He also defended President Barack Obama against accusations that, in trying to assuage African-Americans’ worries about law enforcement, he has contributed to a climate in which cops feel besieged, and failed to speak for all Americans by voicing enough support for law enforcement and public safety.
He said that Obama, Sharpton, and Attorney General Eric Holder have all “sought justice” and worked “to get the glass out of the wound,” and are not culpable for the officers’ deaths.
“So to throw their names around that way is irresponsible and not fair,” said Jackson.

Last week, U.S. President Barack Obama and Cuban President Raul Castro agreed to an exchange of prisoners being held on espionage charges. In addition, Washington and Havana agreed to hold discussions with the goal of establishing diplomatic relations between the two countries. No agreement was reached on ending the U.S. embargo on Cuba, a step that requires congressional approval.

It was a modest agreement, striking only because there was any agreement at all. U.S.-Cuba relations had been frozen for decades, with neither side prepared to make significant concessions or even first moves. The cause was partly the domestic politics of each country that made it easier to leave the relationship frozen. On the American side, a coalition of Cuban-Americans, conservatives and human rights advocates decrying Cuba’s record of human rights violations blocked the effort. On the Cuban side, enmity with the United States plays a pivotal role in legitimizing the communist regime. Not only was the government born out of opposition to American imperialism, but Havana also uses the ongoing U.S. embargo to explain Cuban economic failures. There was no external pressure compelling either side to accommodate the other, and there were substantial internal reasons to let the situation stay as it is.

The Cubans are now under some pressure to shift their policies. They have managed to survive the fall of the Soviet Union with some difficulty. They now face a more immediate problem: uncertainty in Venezuela. Caracas supplies oil to Cuba at deeply discounted prices. It is hard to tell just how close Cuba’s economy is to the edge, but there is no question that Venezuelan oil makes a significant difference. Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro’s government is facing mounting unrest over economic failures. If the Venezuelan government falls, Cuba would lose one of its structural supports. Venezuela’s fate is far from certain, but Cuba must face the possibility of a worst-case scenario and shape openings. Opening to the United States makes sense in terms of regime preservation.

The U.S. reason for the shift is less clear. It makes political sense from Obama’s standpoint. First, ideologically, ending the embargo appeals to him. Second, he has few foreign policy successes to his credit. Normalizing relations with Cuba is something he might be able to achieve, since groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce favor normalization and will provide political cover in the Republican Party. But finally, and perhaps most important, the geopolitical foundations behind the American obsession with Cuba have for the most part evaporated, if not permanently than at least for the foreseeable future. Normalization of relations with Cuba no longer poses a strategic threat. To understand the U.S. response to Cuba in the past half century, understanding Cuba’s geopolitical challenge to the United States is important.

Cuba’s Strategic Value

The challenge dates back to the completion of the Louisiana Purchase by President Thomas Jefferson in 1803. The Territory of Louisiana had been owned by Spain for most of its history until it was ceded to France a few years before Napoleon sold it to the United States to help fund his war with the British. Jefferson saw Louisiana as essential to American national security in two ways: First, the U.S. population at the time was located primarily east of the Appalachians in a long strip running from New England to the Georgia-Florida border. It was extremely vulnerable to invasion with little room to retreat, as became evident in the War of 1812. Second, Jefferson had a vision of American prosperity built around farmers owning their own land, living as entrepreneurs rather than as serfs. Louisiana’s rich land, in the hands of immigrants to the United States, would generate the wealth that would build the country and provide the strategic depth to secure it.

What made Louisiana valuable was its river structure that would allow Midwestern farmers to ship their produce in barges to the Mississippi River and onward down to New Orleans. There the grain would be transferred to oceangoing vessels and shipped to Europe. This grain would make the Industrial Revolution possible in Britain, because the imports of mass quantities of food freed British farmers to work in urban industries.

In order for this to work, the United States needed to control the Ohio-Missouri-Mississippi river complex (including numerous other rivers), the mouth of the Mississippi, the Gulf of Mexico, and the exits into the Atlantic that ran between Cuba and Florida and between Cuba and Mexico. If this supply chain were broken at any point, the global consequences — and particularly the consequences for the United States — would be substantial. New Orleans remains the largest port for bulk shipments in the United States, still shipping grain to Europe and importing steel for American production.

For the Spaniards, the Louisiana Territory was a shield against U.S. incursions into Mexico and its rich silver mines, which provided a substantial portion of Spanish wealth. With Louisiana in American hands, these critical holdings were threatened. From the American point of view, Spain’s concern raised the possibility of Spanish interference with American trade. With Florida, Cuba and the Yucatan in Spanish hands, the Spaniards had the potential to interdict the flow of produce down the Mississippi.

Former President Andrew Jackson played the key role in Jeffersonian strategy. As a general, he waged the wars against the Seminole Indians in Florida and seized the territory from Spanish rule — and from the Seminoles. He defended New Orleans from British attack in 1814. When he became president, he saw that Mexico, now independent from Spain, represented the primary threat to the entire enterprise of mid-America. The border of Mexican Texas was on the Sabine River, only 193 kilometers (120 miles) from the Mississippi. Jackson, through his agent Sam Houston, encouraged a rising in Texas against the Mexicans that set the stage for annexation.

But Spanish Cuba remained the thorn in the side of the United States. The Florida and Yucatan straits were narrow. Although the Spaniards, even in their weakened state, might have been able to block U.S. trade routes, it was the British who worried the Americans most. Based in the Bahamas, near Cuba, the British, of many conflicting minds on the United States, could seize Cuba and impose an almost impregnable blockade, crippling the U.S. economy. The British depended on American grain, and it couldn’t be ruled out that they would seek to gain control over exports from the Midwest in order to guarantee their own economic security. The fear of British power helped define the Civil War and the decades afterward.

Cuba was the key. In the hands of a hostile foreign power, it was as effective a plug to the Mississippi as taking New Orleans. The weakness of the Spaniards frightened the Americans. Any powerful European power — the British or, after 1871, the Germans — could easily knock the Spaniards out of Cuba. And the United States, lacking a powerful navy, would not be able to cope. Seizing Cuba became an imperative of U.S. strategy. Theodore Roosevelt, who as president would oversee America’s emergence as a major naval power — and who helped ensure the construction of the Panama Canal, which was critical to a two-ocean navy — became the symbol of the U.S. seizure of Cuba in the Spanish-American War of 1898-1900.

With that seizure, New Orleans-Atlantic transit was secured. The United States maintained effective control over Cuba until the rise of Fidel Castro. But the United States remained anxious about Cuba’s security. By itself, the island could not threaten the supply lines. In the hands of a significant hostile power, however, Cuba could become a base for strangling the United States. Before World War II, when there were some rumblings of German influence in Cuba, the United States did what it could to assure the rise of former Cuban leader Fulgencio Batista, considered an American ally or puppet, depending on how you looked at it. But this is the key: Whenever a major foreign power showed interest in Cuba, the United States had to react, which it did effectively until Castro seized power in 1959.

The Soviet Influence

If the Soviets were looking for a single point from which they could threaten American interests, they would find no place more attractive than Cuba. Therefore, whether Fidel Castro was a communist prior to seizing power, it would seem that he would wind up a communist ally of the Soviets in the end. I suspect he had become a communist years before he took power but wisely hid this, knowing that an openly communist ruler in Cuba would revive America’s old fears. Alternatively, he might not have been a communist but turned to the Soviets out of fear of U.S. intervention. The United States, unable to read the revolution, automatically moved toward increasing its control. Castro, as a communist or agrarian reformer or whatever he was, needed an ally against U.S. involvement. Whether the arrangement was planned for years, as I suspect, or in a sudden rush, the Soviets saw it as a marriage made in heaven.

Had the Soviets never placed nuclear weapons in Cuba, the United States still would have opposed a Soviet ally in control of Cuba during the Cold War. This was hardwired into American geopolitics. But the Soviets did place missiles there, which is a story that must be touched on as well.

The Soviet air force lacked long-range strategic bombardment aircraft. In World War II, they had focused on shorter range, close air support aircraft to assist ground operations. The United States, engaging both Germany and Japan from the air at long range, had extensive experience with long-range bombing. Therefore, during the 1950s, the United States based aircraft in Europe, and then, with the B-52 in the continental United States, was able to attack the Soviet Union with nuclear weapons. The Soviets, lacking a long-range bomber fleet, could not retaliate against the United States. The balance of power completely favored the United States.

The Soviets planned to leapfrog the difficult construction of a manned bomber fleet by moving to intercontinental ballistic missiles. By the early 1960s, the design of these missiles had advanced, but their deployment had not. The Soviets had no effective deterrent against a U.S. nuclear attack except for their still-underdeveloped submarine fleet. The atmosphere between the United States and the Soviet Union was venomous, and Moscow could not assume that Washington would not use its dwindling window of opportunity to strike safely against the Soviets.

The Soviets did have effective intermediate range ballistic missiles. Though they could not reach the United States from the Soviet Union, they could cover almost all of the United States from Cuba. The Russians needed to buy just a little time to deploy a massive intercontinental ballistic missile and submarine force. Cuba was the perfect spot from which to deploy it. Had they succeeded, the Soviets would have closed the U.S. window of opportunity by placing a deterrent force in Cuba. They were caught before they were ready. The United States threatened invasion, and the Soviets had to assume that the Americans also were threatening an overwhelming nuclear attack on the Soviet Union. They had to back down. As it happened, the United States intended no such attack, but the Soviets could not know that.

Cuba was seared into the U.S. strategic mentality in two layers. It was never a threat by itself. Under the control of a foreign naval power, it could strangle the United States. After the Soviet Union tried to deploy intermediate range ballistic missiles there, a new layer was created in which Cuba was a potential threat to the American mainland, as well as to trade routes. The agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union included American guarantees not to invade Cuba and Soviet guarantees not to base nuclear weapons there. But Cuba remained a problem for the United States. If there were a war in Europe, Cuba would be a base from which to threaten American control of the Caribbean, and with it, the ability to transit ships from the U.S. Pacific Fleet to the Atlantic. The United States never relieved pressure on Cuba, the Soviets used it as a base for many things aside from nuclear weapons (we assume), and the Castro regime clung to the Soviets for security while supporting wars of national liberation, as they were called, in Latin America and Africa that served Soviet strategic interests.

Post-Soviet Cuba

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, Castro lost his patron and strategic guarantor. On the other hand, Cuba no longer threatened the United States. There was an implicit compromise. Since Cuba was no longer a threat to the United States but could still theoretically become one, Washington would not end its hostility toward Havana but would not actively try to overthrow it. The Cuban government, for its part, promised not to do what it could not truly do anyway: become a strategic threat to the United States. Cuba remained a nuisance in places like Venezuela, but a nuisance is not a strategic threat. Thus, the relationship remained frozen.

Since the Louisiana Purchase, Cuba has been a potential threat to the United States when held by or aligned with a major European power. The United States therefore constantly tried to shape Cuba’s policies, and therefore, its internal politics. Fidel Castro’s goal was to end American influence, but he could only achieve that by aligning with a major power: the Soviets. Cuban independence from the United States required a dependence on the Soviets. And that, like all relationships, carried a price.

The exchange of prisoners is interesting. The opening of embassies is important. But the major question remains unanswered. For the moment, there are no major powers able to exploit Cuba’s geographical location (including China, for now). There are, therefore, no critical issues. But no one knows the future. Cuba wants to preserve its government and is seeking a release of pressure from the United States. At the moment, Cuba really does not matter. But moments pass, and no one can guarantee that it will not become important again. Therefore, the U.S. policy has been to insist on regime change before releasing pressure. With Cuba set on regime survival, what do the Cubans have to offer? They can promise permanent neutrality, but such pledges are of limited value.

Cuba needs better relations with the United States, particularly if the Venezuelan government falls. Venezuela’s poor economy could, theoretically, force regime change in Cuba from internal pressure. Moreover, Raul Castro is old and Fidel Castro is very old. If the Cuban government is to be preserved, it must be secured now, because it is not clear what will succeed the Castros. But the United States has time, and its concern about Cuba is part of its DNA. Having no interest now, maintaining pressure makes no sense. But neither is there an urgency for Washington to let up on Havana. Obama may want a legacy, but the logic of the situation is that the Cubans need this more than the Americans, and the American price for normalization will be higher than it appears at this moment, whether set by Obama or his successor.

Chicago Mayor’s son mugged in political ploy

Get a shotgun, Mayor Emanuel, then maybe your kid won’t get mugged?

We learned from a Kelly Quinn, spokeswoman for Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel that his 17-year-old son Zach was mugged near the family’s home.

Pull my finger, as this “mugging” doesn’t pass the smell test for this black man, but here is what is being reported.

Chicago Mayor’s Son Robbed Near Family Home

WGN – Chicago

Chicago Police spokesman Thomas Sweeney didn’t name the victim but says police are investigating the attack Friday night near the mayor’s home.

Here what we do know. According to Sweeney by way of Zach, two males grabbed the victim, took his phone and fled.

The good news is his mugging didn’t get in the way of the family vacation to Chile over the past weekend, as his injuries weren’t that serious.

If this is what happened, let’s just set the record straight. The perps were either black teens or white crackheads. My bet is they were two black teens, because white crackheads are smart enough to work alone on this type of crime.

Two black teens on the other hand are stupid enough (thanks to Liberal miseducation) to think that a cell phone will provide enough money to split, when they redeem it at one of those “We will pay you for your phone” kiosks.

Now, as a conspiracy realists, I don’t think this crime happened as they say, if at all. This is because Emanuel is running for re-election in February, and he needs press…sympathetic press.

I think this was a staged mugging and here are my reasons.

First, his son being mugged would make Emanuel more “human,” if you can actually do that to a snake.

Further, as dumb as black criminals are (yes these staged perps are black), I can’t imagine they would not have stolen Zach’s bling, his wallet, and other cash on hand, along with his phone.

Next, two black men would have stuck out like Rosie O’Donnell tanning at an anorexic’s convention. The neighborhood would have been on HIGH alert, yes racially profiling.

Finally, Emanuel didn’t report who the perps were. Nice ploy to assuage the black population and not snitch.